"Is the Divine Creator Always a Male" By Dr. Carol Copp.

Quote of the Month - Linus Pauling.

"Liberty and Truth Are Always the First Casualties of War" by Stephen F. Rohde.

Philosopher's Corner II - by Paul Ricci.

Philosopher's Corner - by Juan Bernal.

"How We needlessly Contribute to Our Own Grief" by Benito Franqui.

"Don't Laugh This Could be You Some Day!!!" - Humor

At the Sept. 15th Meeting.

1:30 p.m. Sunday.

Is the Divine Creator Always a Male?

By Dr. Carol Copp

All societies have creation stories which answer the basic questions of how the world-nature and people-came into being. Conceptions of the creator reveal where people locate the main source of power in the universe.

In " female Power and Male Dominance, anthropologist Peggy Sandy, based on the cross cultural survey, finds: (1) Creators can be male, female, or a male-female pair; where the creative agent originates and the methods used to create depend on the sex of the creator. Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between the sex of the creator and social factors of subsistence mode, male role in parenting, conflict, and the sexual division of labor.

At our September meeting, sociologist Dr. Carol Copp will explore these intriguing ideas with a review of Sandy's book.

Quote of the Month:

"Humanism is a philosophy of joyous service for the greater good of all humanity, of

application of new ideas of scientific progress for the benefit of all."

Linus Pauling - Scientist, Humanist of the Year 1961, Nobel Peace Prize 1962.

LIBERTY AND TRUTH ARE THE FIRST

CASUALTIES OF WAR

by Stephen F. Rohde, Esq.

Prologue

First they came for the Muslims and I didnt speak up because I wasnt a Muslim.

Then they came for the immigrants detaining them indefinitely solely upon the certification of the Attorney General and I didnt speak up because I wasn t an immigrant.

Then they came to eavesdrop on suspects consulting with their attorneys and I didnt speak up because I wasnt a suspect.

Then they came to prosecute non-citizens before secret military commissions, and I didnt speak up because I wasnt a non-citizen.

Then they came to enter homes and offices for unannounced "sneak and peak" searches and I didnt speak up because I had nothing to hide.

Then they came to reinstate Cointelpro and resume the infiltration and surveillance of domestic religious and political groups and I didnt speak up because I no longer participated in any groups.

Then they came for anyone who objected to government policy because it only aided the terrorists and gave ammunition to America s enemies and I didn t speak up. . . because I didnt speak up.

Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Inspired by Rev. Martin Niemoller (1937) 1

Though suffered on American soil, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, which caused such unspeakable tragedy in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania, resulting in the loss of as many as 3,000 innocent lives from as many as 80 different countries, constituted a crime against humanity. In the midst of our collective grief and mourning, our hopes for lasting justice and peace will only be achieved by confronting the causes of terrorism and by ending the senseless cycle of violence.

Law and Justice, Not War and Violence

Time and again we have witnessed that revenge follows terrorism, leading to renewed retaliation, triggering further terrorism, in an endless and hopeless cycle, promising only further bloodshed and unbearable suffering without lasting safety, security or peace.

The alternatives to violence and war are law and justice. Throughout the last century, intensified by the horrors of World War II, the need for an international judicial system has become all the more urgent, to hold fully accountable those found responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. While the International Criminal Court has now been ratified by a sufficient number of countries to be officially convened, the United States refuses to participate. Fortunately, long established principles and procedures under international law are in place which should have guided the world community in bringing to justice the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks.

The day after, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1368 calling on all States urgently to bring to justice those responsible for the terrorist attacks. Consequently, international jurisdiction was promptly invoked, with the concurrence of the United States, treating the attacks as the subject of international law, not military action led by the United States.

President Bush, Secretary of State Cohn Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld have consistently spoken of "bringing the perpetrators to justice." These statements should not be accepted as mere platitudes. Justice is not achieved by bombs; justice is achieved by law. Under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, the Security Council has the authority and the responsibility at all times "to take any actions as it deems necessary in order to restore international peace and security." Most recently, acting under this authority, the U.N. convened international tribunals to prosecute those charged with crimes against humanity and other offenses in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, including Slobedon Milosavich.

In furtherance of the jurisdiction of those courts, the U.N. used force to apprehend, arrest and prosecute the persons accused of those crimes. This is precisely the model that should have been used to bring the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks to justice.

The international procedures exist to punish crimes against humanity without unleashing war. The horrendous consequences of the war against terrorism pose the unacceptable risk of killing innocent civilians (which has indeed come to pass in Afghanistan); widening the divide between Islamic nations and the rest of the world; destabilizing other countries in the region that are seeking reconciliation; sowing the seeds of future terrorism and postponing for decades, if ever, the goal of establishing a safe, secure and peaceful world.

Dissent From War

On the home front, civil liberties have all too often been the target of government restrictions, especially in times of calamity, foreign and domestic. According to Norman Thomas, "liberty and truth are the first casualties of war."

There were disturbing signs of intolerance and efforts to suppress dissent immediately after September 11. Past experience teaches us that in times of war and national crisis, angry and sometimes hysterical public opinion fuels the authoritarian instincts of all governments and leads to repressive measures.

In 1798, when the ink on the Bill of Rights was barely dry, the Alien & Sedition Acts were passed in anticipation of war with France. Hundreds of newspaper publishers were jailed.

During World War I, one historian has observed that "the United States and other combatant nations established a sprawling web of censorship and propaganda unprecedented in its comprehensive influence." Meanwhile, more than 1000 Americans were sentenced to deportation or long jail terms under the Espionage and Sedition Acts, including Socialist Eugene Debs for doing nothing more than giving a speech in Canton, Ohio.

Censorship persisted to a lesser degree during World War II, but other civil liberties were egregiously violated. Within four days after Pearl Harbor, 1,370 Japanese immigrants in the U.S. were forcibly removed from their homes and businesses with no warning. Less than a month later, the U.S. Treasury Department froze the financial assets of Japanese nationals and bank accounts registered under Japanese sounding names. Eventually, over 110,000 people of Japanese descent, two-thirds of whom were American citizens, were interned in detention camps, labeled as "enemy aliens" or "strangers from a distant shore."

The relatively limited censorship during the Vietnam War and conversely the open reporting of opposition, has been cited as one reason that led to the end of that war.

Stung by the impact of a free press, the U.S. military developed an intricate set of press restrictions, first in Grenada and later in the Gulf War, which allowed the Defense and State Departments to shape the news and filter the information presented to the American People.

As Operation Desert Storm unfolded on the evening news every night, Americans were dazzled by the scenes of how "smart bombs" carefully hit only military targets. But only when press restrictions were lifted did we learn that only about 7% of the bombs dropped on Iraq were "smart" and about 70% of all bombs actually missed their targets.

The President "Skedaddled"

It is at times of fear, grief and anger that our society most needs to protect civil liberties. But instead, September 11 triggered a series of repressive actions.

A columnist for The Texas City Sun, on the day of the attacks wrote that President Bush was "flying around the country like a scared child, seeking refuge in his mothers bed after having a nightmare." After his newspaper received scores of complaints, the publisher apologized on the front page and fired him.

In Grants Pass, Oregon, a columnist for The Daily Courier, wrote that the President had "skedaddled" after the attacks, and he too was fired.

When the news director of KOMU, a commercial TV station run by faculty and students at the University of Missouri decided that no flag pins or red, white and blue ribbons would be worn on camera, a state legislator threatened to look into the schools financing.

The State Department criticized the Voice of America for defying the governments wishes and broadcasting a report based on its interview with Mullah Mohammad Omar, the reclusive leader of Afghanistans ruling Taliban militia.

Perhaps that most notorious reaction against dissenting opinion came when Bill Mahers controversial show Politically Incorrect returned to the air on September 17. When conservative guest Dinesh DSouza disputed President Bushs characterization of the terrorists as "cowards," calling them "warriors" instead, Maher interjected: "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2000 miles away. Thats cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, its not cowardly."

Federal Express and Sears promptly pulled their sponsorship from Mahers show. Several ABC affiliates initially cancelled Politically Incorrect and later put it back on the air. But not the affiliate in Washington, D.C. where White House press secretary, An Fleischer, denounced Maher and warned news organizations and all Americans that in times like these "people have to watch what they say and watch what they do."

As ominous as those warnings were, coming from the highest level of the U.S. government, it was also disturbing that when the White House later released the official transcript of Mr. Fleischers press briefing, the portion telling people to "watch what they say" had been deleted. In response to the negative reaction, Fleischer later went out of his way to reassure us "the press has an unlimited right to do what it sees fit  in war and peace."

Equally disturbing were the statements made by a military officer on the popular Fox News cable program The OReilly Factor, who claimed that people who do not support the government are "treasonous." And perhaps worse was the response of the host, himself a card-carrying member of the free press, who said that people who criticize the government were justifying the terrorists attacks.

Censorship by the government is something we might be able to challenge in court, but self-censorship by the press itself has a far more invisibly corrosive effect on our free society.

There was an ominous example of that just ten days after the September 11 attacks. A consortium of news organizations, including The New York Times, decided to indefinitely postpone the release of the long awaited results of its independent recount of the Florida ballots in the 2000 Presidential election, saying that the findings now seems utterly irrelevant."

Irrelevant to whom? Are we afraid to clarify the results of a highly contested presidential election in the

midst of a national crisis? The United States is a strong, incredibly resilient country  weve certainly witnessed that since September 11. We dont need to be treated like children and have important information withheld from us. If we can be trusted to confront worldwide terrorism and rebuild New York City and the Pentagon, surely we can be trusted to hear about a recount of the Florida ballots.

Indeed, concealing that information only breeds speculation, such as the question: Wouldnt the results have been released if they conclusively confirmed President Bushs election?

Lessons of War

Free flow of information is indispensable to a democracy. Indeed, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld assured us that "Defending our freedom and way of life is what this conflict is all about, and that certainly includes freedom of the press.

Rumsfeld also endorsed nine principles of combat coverage negotiated by news organizations and the Pentagon after the Gulf War. Among those principles are "independent combat reporting" and media access to "all major military units," but reporters achieved neither, according to The New York Times.

According to John McWethy, veteran Pentagon correspondent for ABC News, "Ive covered a dozen conflicts, either from Washington or from the battlefield, and to cover them well, you need as much detail as you can get, and were just not getting that kind of detail."

Rumsfeld has become "the voice of this war" and according to Thomas Ricks, Pentagon correspondent for the Washington Post, he supplanted on-the-scene military commanders who served as news media briefers in previous wars and "unilaterally shut down other channels of communications in an unprecedented fashion.

The reporter added that the "kind of people we usually go to in the Pentagon for guidance on a background basis now say, If they knew I was talking to you, theyd cut my tongue out."

An independent poll in late October found that 59% of those surveyed said the military "should exert more control" over reporting and only 28% said decisions on coverage should be left to news organizations. Other polls gave the President an 80% approval rating.

The U.S.A. Patriot Act

Emboldened by such public support, the Administration forced through Congress comprehensive new

anti-terrorism legislation despite the grave threats it posed to civil liberties.

Called the "U.S.A. Patriot" Act  Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism its principal infirmity is the sweeping authority it gives in all federal criminal investigations  not just those involving suspected terrorists  to secretly search homes and offices and eavesdrop on individuals.

Here are just a few of U.S.A. Patriot Acts other dangerous features:

It creates a broad new definition of "domestic terrorism" that could sweep in people who merely engage in acts of political protest and subject them to wiretapping and enhanced penalties.

It grants the FBI broad access to sensitive medical, financial, mental health and educational records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime and without a court order. It permits the Attorney General to incarcerate or detain non-citizens, based on mere suspicion, and to deny re-admission to the United States of non-citizens (including lawful permanent residents) for engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment.

It allows for the detention and deportation of individuals who provide lawful assistance to groups that have engaged in vaguely defined "terrorist activity" at some point in the past; groups potentially fitting this definition could range from Greenpeace to Operation Rescue to the African National Congress.

It broadly expands government power under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by breaking down the critical distinction between "foreign intelligence" and "criminal" investigations, allowing surveillance to proceed without meeting the Fourth Amendments rigorous probable cause standard.

Our First Responsibility

In his speech to a joint session of Congress on September 20, nine days after the attacks, President Bush called on all of us "to uphold the values of America." He said that "we are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." He described those principles as "our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

In January, in his State of the Union Address, President Bush insisted that we would never compromise our devotion to "human dignity," which he defined as "the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, private property, free speech, equal justice and religious tolerance."

Regrettably, in a series of unprecedented actions taken by the President, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and others, this Administration has deliberately violated the very principles the President insisted it was "our first responsibility . . . to live by."

Instead of respecting freedom of speech and the right to disagree with each other, Attorney General Ashcroft has accused critics of "aiding the terrorists" and giving "ammunition to Americas enemies."

Instead of respecting the rule of law, limits on the power of the state and equal justice, the government has incarcerated over 1200 persons, Muslims and Arabs from Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries, without promptly charging them with any crimes, without promptly giving them access to lawyers and their families.

Instead of respecting the rule of law and our right to vote, which implicates the separation of powers and the checks and balances established by our Constitution, the President issued a Military Order creating secret military courts without any consultation with, let alone authorization from, Congress, a co-equal branch of government.

The Detentions

Of the 1200 individuals taken into custody since September 11, media reports indicate that only ten have been identified as having close ties to the Al-Qaeda and 18 more distant connections to the hijackers or the other ten. Some have been charged with minor criminal offenses and others are guilty of minor immigration violations, such as expired visas.

But what about the others? There have been reports of innocent people detained without any lawful grounds whatsoever.

Tarek Mohamed Fayad, an Egyptian national and dentist from California, picked up September 13, had no lawyer for a month, and is still believed to be in custody. Mohamed Rafig Butt died in custody but had no history of heart failure.

Consider the case of Dr. Al Bader al-Hazmi, a 31-year-old Saudi citizen, living with his wife and child in San Antonio where he is studying gastroenterology to become a board certified radiologist.

On September 12, he was taken from his home by FBI agents, still wearing his nightshirt. When he asked "what is my guilt?" he was told he would find out in due time.

He was held for 13 days, often in shackles. He did not get to see a lawyer for seven days. When he didnt answer a question quickly enough, an official kicked him in the back.

Meanwhile, he was publicly identified as a material witness and misidentified by the media as a key suspect; he was labeled "Dr. Terror" or "the Terrorists Money Man."

Eventually, he was released when the FBI and the Justice Department realized they had absolutely no evidence that Hazmi had anything whatsoever to do with the attacks on September 11 or with any terrorist organization.

How many have "disappeared" or are still being held, whose only crime was looking Middle Eastern or bearing a name like al-Hazmi, which ill-trained FBI agents dont know is as common in the Middle East as the name "Smith" is in the United States.

Unable to get accurate information from the government about the detainees, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act. The legal action has been joined by American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Arab American Institute, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Center for National Security Studies, Human Rights Watch, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

There have also been protests from diplomats who have been denied access to their citizens being held in custody, in violation of the Vienna Convention which requires all signatories including the United States to guarantee foreign detainees prompt access to their consulates. According to The New York Times, some of the diplomats say that the "failure to abide by international norms in handling detentions has undermined assertions by the Bush administration that the United States is fighting to preserve freedom."

The Military Commissions

On November 13, 2001, President Bush signed a Military Order unilaterally creating Military Commissions, without any consultation with, let alone authorization from, Congress. Not only did the Order exceed the Presidents constitutional authority, it deliberately circumvented the U.S.A. Patriot Act sponsored by the administration, which provides that non-citizens suspected of terrorism must be charged with a crime or immigration violation within seven days of being taken into custody and that such detainees will have full access to the federal courts. The Bush Administration had sought indefinite detention without recourse to the Courts. But Congress, in a rare moment of independence, had denied that power. So as soon as the U.S.A. Patriot Act passed, the President did unilaterally what he could not do constitutionally.

Anthony Lewis, Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times columnist, called the Military Order the "most dangerous assault on the constitution in my lifetime." He warned that the Order affects some 20 million people in this country and he called it a "coup by the President of the United States."

Under the Military Order, the President alone can charge noncitizens with "acts of international  a term not defined by the Order. They could be tried in secret by a military commission under rules established by the Department of Defense. The military commissions would not be bound by "the principles of law" or "the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the U.S. District Courts."

Conviction and sentencing (including the death penalty) would only require the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the commission present at the time of the vote, a majority being present. It has been widely misreported that a bare majority of the commission could condemn a suspect to death. Its worse. Assuming a five-person commission, with a majority of three present at the time of the vote, according to the Presidents Order, two out of three, less than a majority, could condemn an individual to death.

And if all that were not bad enough, the Military Order purports to deny any relief or appeal in any court of the United States, any foreign nation or any international tribunal and lodges the exclusive right of appeal in the President himself (or, at his election, the Secretary of Defense.) Conveniently, free of any judicial, congressional or international oversight, the President indicts, the Presidents men sit in judgment and the President presides over any appeal. This would be the envy of any totalitarian ruler, unencumbered by the nuisance of a Constitution or a Bill of Rights.

The Administration defends the Presidents Military Order on the basis of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ex Parte Quinn, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), which upheld President Roosevelts creation of a military conmilssion to try eight Nazi saboteurs during World War H. Unfortunately for the President, far from serving as a precedent, Quinn highlights why the Military Order is unconstitutional.

In World War II, Congress had declared war and had enacted Articles of War, and the Espionage Act of 1917, which recognized military tribunals in times "of war."

The Articles of War were later replaced by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. '801 cited by President Bush as a basis for his Order. However, 10 U.S.C. '821 does not authorize the creation of military commissions; it only provides that if a military tribunal exists, it has concurrent jurisdiction with court martial. The other statutory authority cited by President Bush, 18 U.S.C. '836, likewise does not authorize the creation of military commissions, but merely gives the executive branch the authority to deviate, when "practicable," from the Federal Rules of Evidence for military courts, including military tribunals.

Primarily, President Bush relies on the Authorization for Use of Military Force adopted by Congress on September 18, a week after the September 11 attacks. But unlike a declaration of war, the Joint Resolution is limited in several respects as compared to the Order.

While the September 18 Resolution authorizes the use of "force," the November 13 Order goes well beyond any conceivable definition of "force." Moreover, the Resolution applies only to persons involved in some way in the September 11 attacks, while the Order covers anyone involved in "acts of international terrorism," without any limitation to September 11. And whereas the Resolution permits action "in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism," the Order deals with prosecuting persons for past or future actions.

Unless civilian courts are closed, it is questionable whether the President has the power to establish military tribunals at all.

In Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866), the Supreme Court granted a writ of habeas corpus sought by a group of men tried for conspiracy during the Civil War, rejecting the governments claim that constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments are suspended during wartime. It held that the Constitution "is the law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances." 71 U.S. at 120.

The Court held that so long as civilian courts are open and administering criminal justice, military courts cannot be established. Milligan is still good law and was applied in Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 (1946), holding that the Governor of Hawaii had no congressional or constitutional authorization for declaring "martial law" and displacing civilian courts with military tribunals.

It may have escaped the attention of the President and his defenders that under the decision in Milligan, the U.S.A. Patriot Act, introduced by the Bush Administration itself, limits detention without charge to seven days and confirms that our civilian courts remain open and ready to try accused terrorists.

There has been no showing that our existing judicial system is inadequate to try suspected terrorists. The United States tried the bombing conspirators in the original World Trade Center, the foiled plot to bomb New York City tunnels and the suspects in the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, all in U.S. District Courts. Many Al Qaeda leaders are currently under indictment in U.S. Courts.

Our system is well equipped to deal with high security trials. Under the Classified Information Procedures Act ("CIPA"), classified evidence can be summarized for disclosure to the defense under supervision of a federal judge to ensure compliance with due process.

We have the means to try suspected terrorists without sacrificing our Constitution.

Beyond all this, the Presidents military commissions are self-defeating, since our allies have announced that they will not extradite suspects if they face prosecution and the possibility of the death penalty at the hands of a tribunal which so utterly fails to comply with international standards of human rights, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

These are the very standards the United States has rightfully invoked when condemning military tribunals in Peru, Nigeria, Egypt and Russia.

Fortunately, so far the Administration has blinked twice in cases that appear to fall within the scope of the Military Order: Zarcarias Moussaoui, the suspected 20th suicide bomber and Richard Reid, the suspected Al Qaeda shoe bomber, are both being tried in Federal courts.

Perhaps the criticism from across the political spectrum and from around the world has lessened the Presidents zeal for secret military commissions.

Guantánamo Bay and the Geneva Convention

The United States has violated the Geneva Convention in connection with the detention of approximately 300 captives who are alleged to be Taliban or Al Qaeda soldiers from 25 different countries, including Britain, Australia, France, Belgium, Sweden, Algeria, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The President and the Secretary of Defense have presumptuously labeled these prisoners as "unlawful combatants" and have exceeded the limitations of the Geneva Convention by subjecting them to interrogation, when the Convention expressly provides that they

need only disclose their name, rank, serial number and date of birth.

Despite the Presidents reassurance that the U.S. is adhering to the "spirit of the Geneva Convention," we should be very clear about what the Convention provides.

Here is a summary of some main provisions of the Third Geneva Convention and the Additional Protocols to it, which define the conduct of combatants and the protection of prisoners of war:

Defining "Armed Forces." The armed forces of a party to a conflict must be organized and under a command responsible to that party. They must be subject to an internal system that enforces compliance with the rules of international law. In particular, combatants must distinguish themselves from civilians by a uniform or other distinctive sign recognizable at a distance. In some cases, the fact that combatants carry arms openly during an attack is sufficient to make them recognizable.

Defining "Prisoner of War." In general, any member of the armed forces of a party to a conflict is a combatant, and any member captured by the enemy party is a prisoner of war. The status and treatment of prisoners of war may also be extended to other categories of people who do not meet the definition of combatants. The status of "prisoner of war" cannot be altered except by a "competent tribunal."

 Questioning. Prisoners of war are required to give only their name, rank, date of birth, serial number or equivalent information. The detaining power may not subject them to any physical or mental torture, or to any form of coercion, in order to obtain information.

 Repatriation. Prisoners of war must be "released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of

hostilities," i.e., after the cease fire. Those convicted of, or prosecuted for, criminal offenses may be detained until the end of legal proceedings and, if necessary, until the end of their sentences.

Legal Treatment. Prisoners of war are subject to the law, regulations and orders in force in the armed forces of the detaining power. They may be tried only by a military court unless the laws of the detaining power expressly permit civil courts to try a member of the armed forces for the offense in question. They must have the same right to appeal as members of the armed forces of the detaining power.

(Source: International Committee of the Red Cross)

It is clear that the Bush Administration is violating the Geneva Convention and the cause of international law is suffering, not to mention the support of our allies, many of whom have condemned our blatant disregard of international law.

It is reported that certain military officials and Secretary of State Powell, who understand the importance of reciprocity under the Geneva Convention, have expressed concern that by denying the captives the protections of the Geneva Convention, the U.S. is setting a precedent that could put future American battlefield captives at risk.

New Warfare, Old Principles

In all this, it is worth remembering the prescient words of Supreme Court Justice Murphy in Duncan v. Kahanamoku, decided in 1946, concerning the constitutionality of martial law in Hawaii during World War II after the immediate threat of invasion had passed. The government insisted that the invention of nuclear weapons required new thinking for a new kind of war that would not permit the luxury of rights enshrined in an Eighteenth Century constitution.

The Court rejected that argument. Justice Murphy wrote, "That excuse is no less unworthy of our traditions when used in this day of atomic warfare or at a future time when some other type of warfare may be devised."

Over a half century later, the wisdom of Justice Murphy endures. The new warfare of terrorism does not excuse us from remaining true to our traditions.

President Bush was right on September 20 to call upon us to "uphold the values of America" and to "live by our principles." We can only hope he will practice what he preaches.

In the Pentagon Papers case, a federal judge wrote that "The security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone. Security also lies in the value of our free institutions. A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know."

The history of whether America protected civil liberties and the right to dissent while successfully addressing the causes of terrorism, restoring a prosperous economy and advancing world peace, is being written right now, by each one of us.

Will it be a courageous history befitting the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights? Or will it be a shameful histor> in which the liberties for which America stands were compromised?

As Thomas Jefferson warned us: "A Society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will deserve neither and lose both."

1 The original statement is written by Pastor Martin Niemoller: "They came first for the Communists, and I didnt speak up because I wasnt a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didnt speak up because I wasnt a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didnt speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up." Pastor Martin Niemoller, a Lutheran minister and a former World War I U-boat commander, who had once briefly supported the Nazis, became a figure of opposition to National Socialism in Germany. In 1933, he became part of a group which openly declared its resistance to the Nazis. Briefly arrested in 1937 and imprisoned in 1938, he was imprisoned in concentration camps at Sachsenhausen and Dachau until his liberation in 1945.

PHILOSOPHER'S CORNER II

By paul Ricci

Though I don't believe Prof. Novotny was really advocating emotion over thought and reason, I do agree with most of what Juan Bernal expressed in his PHILOSOPHER'S CORNER (August Issue). I suspect Prof. Novotny was really concerned about the lack of emotive expression only in certain areas regarding males in our society. Certainly there is little reason to deny emotion in everyday life but--as Spinoza would have it-- these emotions should be guided by reason and the "evil" emotions should be controlled as much as possible. However, rather than diverge into a discussion of "reason vs. emotion," allow me to narrow in on the last few paragraphs of Juan's article which incited me to ponder his words.

He raises the question: "Do skeptics, who find no rational grounds for characterizing our nation as one under God, have the right to demand that the rest of the nation limit itself to a neutral, secular view of our nation?" Though the question isn't answered directly, the author seems to imply that believers in God--the majority view in our country--do have such a right. My answer to the question, however, would be an emphatic "yes." If the "wall of separation between church and state" is to mean anything, it should mean a secular state. Though a family member related to me thinks this whole issue is just a tempest in a teapot, that such religious statements as found in the pledge and "in God we trust" on our currency really have no practical implications for Americans. While this may well be true, I think such expressions as foisted upon us may well have ideological as well as psychological implications. Granted, such phrases extolling God do express the religious and cultural history for those who were expressly Christian it DOES NOT express the part of our culture and history opposed to this view. Many of us think such a history has done more harm than good. Why should this particular ideology be foisted on the many who would distance themselves from the doctrines and values of this religion? Unless we plan to honor OTHER traditions in our culture and history, I think it manifestly unfair that an ideology--just because it has been a majority historically-- should be forced on the rest of us. Psychologically, it boosts the believers into thinking they are right and the rest of us wrong while at the same time it places all other belief systems on the defense and inculcates a feeling of inferiority. Why not substitute "under Satan" or "under Shiva" for "under God"? Now how do you think Christians might take this? After all, we have had a long history of the first god--whom some worship-- though a shorter history of the latter. Beside, not all Christians are united in flaunting the controversial phrases. Some think it demeans the name of God. (See Phil Donahue's recent article on this latter point.)

Little by little, secularism is being dismantled in this country and I, for one, look at this as quite disturbing. Once the phrase issue is dropped--which I expect it will be-- I fear the next nail to be banged into the coffin of secularism. Reason, more than emotion, tells me we should fight these issues before the religious right overwhelms us.

PHILOSOPHERS CORNER

By Juan Bernal, Worker in the Field

At a time that our government seems intent on translating the "war on terrorism" into an attack on Iraq with the goal of removing Saddam Hussein as the leader of that nation, we might reflect on the question of war from a Humanist perspective. Here we might ask: Is there a "Humanist moral imperative" with regard to war?"

Do we have anything like general Humanist principles regarding war to help Humanists clarify their thinking about war? Is the Humanist philosophy on war one that favors pacifism? Or is it one analogous to the Roman Catholic doctrine that allows for just wars and attempts to define the concept of just war?

Earlier Humanist declarations give us some ideas to draw upon, for example

The Humanist Manifesto II of 1973 under the subheading of WORLD COMMUNITY reads as follows: "... the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community ...we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. This world community must renounce the resort to violence and force as a method of solving international disputes. . . War is obsolete. So is the use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. . ."

This suggests that humanistic principles are inconsistent with the type of strong nationalism that uses war as a tool of national policy (i.e., the policy of our government).

In his book "The Philosophy of Humanism", Corliss Lamont writes:

"Manifestly any practicable and constructive scheme of world planning depends on the elimination of international war, the most terrible and destructive malady that has ever afflicted the human race."

From the Humanist Manifesto III (a work in progress) we get the following:

The Pro-Peace/Anti-War plank: "Humanists respect human life, therefore we recognize war as a cause of, rather than a solution to, human problems."

From such sources one could conclude that generally the Humanist position is one that opposes war. But when we attempt to get down to the details regarding this "anti-war" stance, I am sure that we have much to discuss. My guess is that even among Humanists we will have some disagreement.

Thus, Im proposing as a topic for a future general meeting, a panel discussion of the humanist position regarding war. Is there such a thing?

How do we spell it out? Are there any volunteers who will prepare short presentations and serve as panelists?

How We Needlessly Contribute To Our Own Grief

By Benito Franqui

In the Los Angeles Times (August 31, religion section), the perennial question has surfaced once again: "How can a 'loving God' allow terrible things to happen?"

A somewhat different question occurs to me - one that is perhaps more practical: "How can we avoid agonizing over the preceding question - an agonizing which only adds to our grief?"

An atheist, of course, has a simple answer for both questions: "There's no

'God' of any kind. Case closed."

I'd like to propose a somewhat different solution - or at least, a different perspective - a perspective that will perhaps be found to be more acceptable by mainstream theists.

Seems to me that the problem begins with our unquestioned acceptance of some particular "infallible" model of the nature of God. In spite of, on the one hand, our admitting the inability of our own limited human minds to completely grasp an infinite God, we insist that it's somehow possible for a convocation of such fallible human beings to arrive at an infallible model of God. Not only do we vigorously affirm our own ability to do that, but we also deny others the right to do the same - even when the competing model is not being claimed to be infallible, and doesn't even have 'God' as its primary focus. For example, some theists brand Thomas Jefferson as having been "foolish" for daring to construct his own Bible by cutting and pasting passages from a traditional Bible - even though his main purpose apparently was to provide, not yet another model of God, but a model for our own ethical behavior. I cannot avoid wondering: who is really being foolish in this particular instance?

Instead of arbitrarily pontificating "God is Love" - and possibly encouraging misguided expectations - why not affirm: "Love is God"? We seem to be saying the same thing - and yet, the emphasis is quite different. We are affirming the kind of God we believe in - whether or not that kind of God actually exists in the cosmic realm, we can certainly vouch for its existence in the realm of the human heart. We are affirming our own power to respond positively to negative events, by extending love to any victims of any tragedies - including ourselves. We are affirming our fundamental trust in the Eternal Laws of Life, even when those laws temporarily subject us to pain. And those Eternal Laws of Life can be no other than the Laws of the One True God.

Don't laugh...this could be you one day!!!

These are some "Senior" personal ads seen in Florida and Arizona newspapers

FOXY LADY: Fashion-conscious, blue-haired beauty, 80's, slim, 5'-4" (used to be 5-6), searching for sharp-looking, sharp-dressing companion. Matching white shoes and belt a plus.

LONG-TERM COMMITMENT: Recent widow who has just buried fourth husband looking for someone to round out a six-unit plot. Dizziness, fainting, shortness of breath not a problem.

SERENITY NOW: I am into solitude, long walks, sunrises, the ocean, yoga and meditation. If you are the silent type, let's get together, take our hearing aids out and enjoy quiet times.

WINNING SMILE: Active grandmother with original teeth seeking a dedicated flosser to share rare steaks, corn on the cob and caramel candy.

BEATLES OR STONES? I still like to rock, still like to cruise in my Camaro on Saturday nights and still like to play the air guitar. If you were a groovy chick, or are now a groovy hen, let's get together and listen to my boss collection of eight-track tapes.

MEMORIES: I can usually remember Monday through Thursday. If you can remember Friday, Saturday and Sunday, let's put our two heads together.

MINT CONDITION: Male, 1932, high mileage, good condition, some hair, many new parts including hip, knee, cornea, valves. Isn't in running condition, but walks well.